C-130 Crashes in Road in Georgia, USA

Most 4 engine airplanes fly quite well on three and even two engines. The 4 engined turboprop I used to fly (CL 44) didn't even loose much speed when we shut one down-we did have to descend about 2-4 thousand feet though. I have done several three engine takeoffs, and then flown five hours over water-safely. There is a procedure in the book for a two engine takeoff. There is no published VMC ( minimum single control speed). The airplane will maintain speed on two engines. If you only had one running you would politely ask the Enginer to break out the drift down charts and move the life rafts over near the door. We also had a system that was basically an autofeather.
The C 130 is very simular, as are all large 4 engine transports. They are very safe and somewhat overpowered (except when loaded to gross comming out of Puerto Rico in July). I find it hard to believe that a sudden failure of even two engines would cause a loss of directional control-look at the size of the rudder for one.

 

I will add that when you are in the air cargo business you live in fear of, and do everything you can to prevent a cargo shift-a cargo shift is a stone cold killer. On my flights I required every crewmember to check the cargo tiedowns.
specially after the Arrow Air crash at MIA.

 

This has been an age-old problem. Ernie Gann told me about a load of radio antennas that weren't tied down in a C-47 that he was flying and when he started the climb out they shifted aft and he somehow managed to get things under control long enough for the crew to move some of them forward. I helped to fly cargo in a Stinson Bushman (SR10 with an R985) and it had a ridiculously tolerant cg range and you could load it just about any way you wanted to and it made little difference. So it depends on the airplane some times.

 

SR10 Bushman

 

'Nuther
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I should have titled this shot that I took sometime in 1973. I was at the end of the "runway" at Friday Harbor Airport when the Bushman was on short final. It was the first landing of a new pilot and I should mention that there was no dual control in this airplane. You got in and tried to remember manifold pressures, rpm, speeds, and hope that you would do it right the first time.

 

Looks like .....782 is still registered... nice.

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Stinson-SR-10E-Reliant-Wardlow-Bushman/1250974

 

There was a comment underneath that picture that stated that the steel tube fuselage was replaced with an all metal structure. Not so. The wooden stringers and formers were replaced by a metal skin. The steel tube structure was retained. The wings were metalized also by riveting the metal skin to the steel tube rib and spar structure. Not many people know that the Stinson SR series had steel tube ribs and steel tube truss spars. A durable airplane. I should recall that the "right-seater" had no belt, no rudder pedals, no wheel, and sat on an apple box. One morning I asked the pilot, Terry, if the Bushman had ever been looped. " Well sure!" Nose down to build a bit of speed and then around we went with me firmly planted in place on the floor on my apple box. Later during a maintenance overhaul they found a cracked lift strut fitting in the fuselage. Great memories, though.

 

Thanks for looking that up. I wasn't aware that you could do that, Just haven't been up to those things. It pleases me that 782 is still registered because I had a few hours working with it. Looking back at those days 45 years ago I realize how primitive things were then AND how much fun it was. I have been involved with aviating and aviation for too long now and things are no longer as personal and personable as they were. The tentacles of the FAA weren't as encompassing then.

 

I did some reading on the mechanisms the control the feather and reverse mechanisms for the propellers. Though I don't get how both engines on the same (left) side could go into reverse after takeoff.
Seems to be a lot of chatter online about this incident and reverse props a few places. Ive not worked on any propeller aircraft in my 20 years as an A&P, so the (Hamilton propeller) reversing mechanism and mechanical feather system is really interesting to read about.

Not sure if you could fly with the left engines at idle (reversed?) and the right advanced and offset the differential thrust with the rudder at such a low airspeed and altitude?

Pilots are amazing.

(I really, really do not like the whole "self driving car" crap that is being pushed. We need people at the controls!)

 

The one instance I know of where props went into reverse in flight was due to pilot error. Pilot jerked all four back past flight idle and into reverse. A friend who was on the flight had some very pointed comments on the subject as he spent some time pinned to the top of the cockpit before control was regained.

In this case it seems kinda unlikely that they had them go into reverse, there are a whole bunch of other things I would think of before that.

You can fly with two engines out on one side but it takes a bit more work and you gotta be real careful. I don't know anybody who has done it in real life but it's something that gets practiced in the sim. One of the funny thing about flying with Navy and Coast guard guys is that they think nothing of shutting down an engine for long endurance patrol flights in the P-3 and C-130.

I have heard that during testing a J model took off on one engine just to show the power of the new engine/prop.

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/lockheed-kc-130t-hercules-united-states.html

 

On our P-3's we would feather 2 engines all the time to stay on station longer, and those were some long boring flights, watching this crash video is sad to see, I still wonder as this plane was headed to the boneyard if it were pieced together with sub par parts....I know when we sent aircraft in to rework most of the good equipment was swapped out with bad, with bare minimums..

 

Did not see anything about that plane being from a depot...

Everything I saw on that was not necessarily the fault of the plane... or pilot... necessarily.
Just called a 'mishap', it was a refueler, it looks like, was apparently carrying at least some explosives, ammo, etc.
There was probably a midair explosion at cruise altitude causing a breakup.

Apparently had some on-ground wing damage from years before.

What's your info?
Thanks.

 

I read something this morning that was released in Puerto Rico that said this plane was in Tennessee, then flown to Savannah for repairs to get it to Arizona to be scrapped? The report indicated the pilot confided to a neighbor and relatives the day before the accident he did not want to fly that plane due to the serious issues it had, one of which that it could not be pressurized.

 

Thanks for your input. This must hit close to home with you. Such a terrible loss looking at the service times of those lost onboard.

 

I saw a B-50 crash when number three and four went into full feather shortly after take off. The video of the C-130 rolling over triggered some visions from 66 years ago.

 

The military has announced locally its looking for help from eyewitnesses and any video anyone has. Some of the outer area roads have been reopened, which is great for locals. Impact area will be closed for along time.

 

http://www.prinforma.com/archives/839

Article on pilot not having confidence in aircraft before flight. FYI.

 

Older "fin -stall" discussion.

http://www.c-130hercules.net/forums/topic/3604-rudder-fin-stall/

 

That's the same I heard it was heading to the boneyard in Tucson as it was an old plane...

 

Wonder if it could not be pressurized because the system was bad or because the fuselage could not take the pressurization? She was an old one.

 

Was reported recently aircraft was made in the late '70's. WSas reported incorrectly it was an early, very old airframe. I guess it will get sorted in a year or so when the reports come out.

 

There is at least one C-130B built in 1960 which is still flying successfully for a European air arm. By that standard this aircraft was not that old.